Mandatory Integration Measures and Differential Inclusion: The Italian Case

Abstract

Since 2012 migrants arriving regularly in Italy must sign an integration agreement and declare their agreement with a ‘Charter of the values’. Insufficient integration (measured through a point-based system) results in deportation. While the point-based system discriminates against the poor, the less educated and qualified, the subordinate workers, and the nomads, the Charter is inspired by stereotypical and stigmatizing visions of Islam. This paper identifies the cases of discrimination, both legal (freedom of thought, presumption of innocence, principle of non-discrimination, right to an effective remedy, laicism of state) and symbolical, of the integration agreement, and analyses Italian integration measures before the background of the concept of differential inclusion: the incorporation of regular migrants requires them to pass under a symbolic and legal yoke, which increases their hierarchical differentiation. The integration agreement is also analyzed with regard to its relationship with border controls and with the concepts of ‘illegalization’ and ‘deportability’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Netherlands was the forerunner for both turns (Joppke 2007; Vasta 2007; Schinkel 2013). Other countries followed the Dutch example, while the EU adopted three directives (the long-term residents directive, the family reunification directive, and the blue card directive) that expressly allow member states to require certain categories of third-country nationals to comply with integration measures and conditions (De Vries 2012).

  2. 2.

    The shift towards cultural integration through mandatory civic integration programmes is often seen as a move from multiculturalist towards assimilationist policies (Brubaker 2001; Alexander 2013). However, it is also argued that the opposition between multiculturalism and assimilationism, or between integration and assimilation (Schneider and Crul 2010) is to be found more in political discourses than in actual practices, which in fact remain largely multiculturalist (Banting and Kymlicka 2013). In the end, if it is true that multiculturalism and assimilationism are but two sides of the same coin, as no multiculturalism exists without a certain amount of assimilationism (Hage 2011), it seems that the coin of integration policies tends to fall more and more often on the assimilationist side.

  3. 3.

    Pre-entry measures (including language and civic culture tests for categories such as family migrants, highly skilled migrants and religious ministers) have been adopted by Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and UK. France and Denmark have adopted milder versions that don’t completely preclude entry (Groenendijk 2011).

  4. 4.

    Newcomers and/or immigrants applying for long-term resident status are required to attend courses and/or pass tests on language and/or civic culture in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and UK (ICMPD 2005; Carrera 2006; Jacobs and Rea 2007; Joppke 2007).

  5. 5.

    Migrants applying for citizenship status must pass tests and/or attend courses of language and/or civic culture in Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and UK (European Migration Network 2012).

  6. 6.

    Austria also sanctions insufficient integration with deportation, but the deadline for reaching the requested degree of integration is longer (3 to 5 years).

  7. 7.

    Article 1, paragraph 25, law 94 of 15 July 2009 (“Disposizioni in materia di sicurezza pubblica”). Since then, this specific provision constitutes article 4-bis of the “Testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero” (Legislative decree 286 of 25 July 1998, as amended), hereafter Testo unico.

  8. 8.

    Decree of the President of the Republic 179 of 14 September 2011 (“Regolamento concernente la disciplina dell’accordo di integrazione tra lo straniero e lo stato”).

  9. 9.

    Decree of the Ministry of Interior of 23 April 2007 (“Carta dei valori della cittadinanza e dell’integrazione”).

  10. 10.

    Article 4-bis, paragraph 2, of the Testo unico.

  11. 11.

    In Italian: “della cultura civica e della vita civile in Italia” (Annex A, article 4, of the regulation).

  12. 12.

    Annex A, article 1, of the regulation.

  13. 13.

    Annex A, article 2, of the regulation.

  14. 14.

    Ibidem.

  15. 15.

    Article 4-bis, paragraph 2, of the Testo unico.

  16. 16.

    Ibidem.

  17. 17.

    Ibidem.

  18. 18.

    Annex A, article 5, of the regulation.

  19. 19.

    Ironically, living in a luxury yacht would be a disadvantage as well.

  20. 20.

    Annex A, article 1, of the regulation.

  21. 21.

    Roberta Aluffi Beck Peccoz (Università di Torino), Carlo Cardia (Università Roma Tre), Khaled Fouad Allam (Università di Trieste), Adnane Mokrani (Università Gregoriana, Rome), Francesco Zannini (Pontificio Istituto di studi arabi ed islamistica, Rome), Franco Testa (prefect) and Maria Patrizia Paba (vice-prefect).

  22. 22.

    Before the provisions regarding the integration agreement came into force, the charter had been used only once, when seven Islamic organizations declared to accept it as the basis upon which to build up relationships with the state (Colaianni 2009).

  23. 23.

    Section titles include “Human dignity, rights and duties”, “Social rights - Work and health”, “Social rights – Schooling, education, information”, “Family – The new generations”, “Secularism and religious freedom”, “Italy’s international commitment”.

  24. 24.

    Besides other more common discriminations (e.g. regarding the right to sell or buy real estate property, or the right to vote) characterizing Western, Christian and Italian ‘tradition’, a particular one deserves to be mentioned: until 1981 the Italian penal code recognized so called honour killings. If a woman was caught by her husband, brother or father with a man other than her legitimate spouse, her husband, brother or father could kill the woman and/or the man, and he would be given only a milder sentence (from 3 to 7 years prison). In spite of this, discourses on integration often present honour killings as peculiar to the Islamic tradition.

  25. 25.

    Article 556 of the codice penale.

  26. 26.

    But not for polyandry, which is still practiced in other contexts instead.

  27. 27.

    The relevant provision (article 5, law 152 of 22 May 1975, as amended by article 2, law 533 of 8 August 1977) was adopted in a period in which left- and right-wing political terrorism was the most acute problem of public order in Italy.

  28. 28.

    e.g. visa obligations, carrier sanctions, cooperation with third countries, patrols on the high seas, police liaison officers, detention centres, externalization of asylum and diffused internal identity checks.

  29. 29.

    At the time of writing, the first assessments of the integration level of migrants have just begun.

References

  1. Alexander, J. C. (2013). Struggling over the mode of incorporation: backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(4), 531–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Attia, I. (2013). Privilegien sichern, nationale Identität revitalisieren. Journal für Psychologie, 21(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (2013). Is there really a retreat from multiculturalism policies? New evidence from the multiculturalism policy index. Comparative European Politics, 11(5), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brubaker, R. (2001). The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 531–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Camera dei Deputati. (2006). Risposta del ministro Giuliano Amato all’interrogazione dell’onorevole Luca Volontè (Iniziative volte all’immediata redazione di una Carta dei Valori). Rome: Camera dei Deputati.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cardia, C. (2008). Carta dei valori e multiculturalità alla prova della Costituzione. Stato, chiese e pluralismo confessionale

  7. Carrera, S. (2006). A Comparison of Integration Programmes in the EU. Trends and Weaknesses (p. 1). Challenge Papers.

  8. Casas-Cortes, M., Cobarrubias, S., De Genova, N., Garelli, G., Grappi, G., Heller, C., et al. (2014). New keywords: migration and borders. Cultural Studies. doi:10.1080/09502386.2014.891630.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Colaianni, N. (2007). Una ‘carta’ post-costituzionale? Stato, chiese e pluralismo confessionale.

  10. Colaianni, N. (2009). Alla ricerca di una politica del diritto sui rapporti con l’Islam (Carta dei valori e Dichiarazione di intenti). Stato, chiese e pluralismo confessionale.

  11. Cuttitta, P. (2007). Segnali di confine. Il controllo dell’immigrazione nel mondo-frontiera. Milan: Mimesis.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cuttitta, P. (2013). L’accordo di integrazione come caso di discriminazione istituzionale in Italia. In M. Grasso (Ed.), Razzismi, discriminazioni e confinamenti (pp. 257–273). Rome: Ediesse.

    Google Scholar 

  13. De Genova, N. (2002). Migrant ‘illegality’ and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Genova, N. (2013). Spectacles of migrant ‘illegality’: the scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1180–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. De Vries, K. (2012). Integration Requirements in EU Migration Law. EUI Working Paper MWP 20.

  16. European Migration Network (2012). Ad-Hoc Query on Citizenship Tests. Requested by AT EMN NCP on 27th April 2012. Compilation produced on 28th September 2012. http://www.sisekaitse.ee/public/ERV/ad_hoc/muu/2011/2012/EMN_NCP_AT_Ad-Hoc_Query_on_Citizenship_Tests_22062012_open_compilation.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2014.

  17. Ferrari, S. (2008). La carta dei valori della cittadinanza e dell’integrazione. In I. S. M. U. Fondazione (Ed.), Tredicesimo rapporto sulle migrazioni: 2007 (pp. 265–277). Milan: Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Groenendijk, K. (2011). Pre-departure integration strategies in the European Union: integration or immigration policy? European Journal of Migration and Law, 13, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hage, G. (2011). Multiculturalism and the ungovernable Muslim. In R. Gayta (Ed.), Essays on Muslims & multiculturalism (pp. 155–186). Melbourne: Text Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  20. ICMPD. (2005). Integration agreements and voluntary measures. Vienna: International Centre for Migration Policy Development.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jacobs, D., & Rea, A. (2007). The end of national models? Integration courses and citizenship trajectories in Europe. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 9(2), 264–283.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (2011). The crises of multiculturalism. Racism in a neoliberal age. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2010). The racialisation of Muslims. In S. Sayyid & A. Vakil (Eds.), Thinking through Islamophobia: global perspectives (pp. 69–83). London: Hurst & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Onasch, E., & Weide, M. (2012). Teaching integration in France and Finland: a comparison of national discourses within civic integration programmes. In H. Vad Jønsson, E. Onasch, S. Pellander, & M. Wickström (Eds.), Migrations and welfare states policies, discourses and institutions (pp. 174–215). Helsinki: Nordic Centre of Excellence NordWel.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Russo Spena, A., & Carbone, V. (2014). Il dovere di integrarsi. Cittadinanze oltre il logos multiculturalista. Rome: Armando Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Santoro, E. (2006). La fine della biopolitica e il controllo delle migrazioni: il carcere strumento della dittatura democratica della classe soddisfatta. In P. Cuttitta & F. Vassallo Paleologo (Eds.), Migrazioni, frontiere, diritti (pp. 293–321). Naples: ESI.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Scevi, P. (2010). Diritto delle migrazioni.Profili penali, civili, amministrativi. Piacenza: La Tribuna.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schiffauer, W. (2008). Parallelgesellschaften. Wie viel Wertekonsens braucht unsere Gesellschaft? Für eine kluge Politik der Differenz. Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schinkel, W. (2013). The imagination of ‘society’ in measurements of immigrant integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1142–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schneider, J., & Crul, M. (2010). New insights into assimilation and integration theory: introduction to the special issue. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1143–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shachar, A. (2007). The shifting border of immigration regulation. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 3(2), 165–193.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Taras, R. (2013). ‘Islamophobia never stands still’: race, religion, and culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(3), 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Triadafilopoulos, T. (2011). Illiberal means to liberal ends? Understanding recent immigrant integration policies in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(6), 861–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. van Houtum, H., & van Naerssen, T. (2002). Bordering, ordering and othering. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(2), 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Walters, W. (2002). Mapping Schengenland: denaturalizing the border. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(5), 561–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Walters, W. (2004). Secure borders, safe haven, domopolitics. Citizenship Studies, 8(3), 237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zorzella, N. (2011). L’accordo di integrazione: ultimo colpo di coda di un governo cattivo? Diritto Immigrazione e Cittadinanza, 13(4), 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Karin de Vries for her helpful comments. Earlier versions of this paper were presented in Agrigento (‘Razzismi, discriminazioni e confinamenti’ conference), Bergamo (‘Mapping Conceptual Change in Thinking European Borders’ conference), Bergen aan Zee (VU Migration Law Seminar ‘Bergen VI’), Palermo (postgraduate seminar, Scuola di dottorato in Diritto sovranazionale e diritto interno, Palermo University) and Bologna (graduate seminar, Dipartimento di Scienze politiche e sociali, Bologna University). Thanks go to the hosts—Antonella E. Castronovo, Mario Grasso, Michele Mannoia, Marco A. Pirrone and Alessandra Sciurba (Agrigento); Gianluca Bocchi, Chiara Brambilla, Jussi Laine, James Scott (Bergamo); Juan Amaya Castro, Daan Bes, Evelien Brouwer (Bergen aan Zee); Aldo Schiavello, Guido Smorto and Isabel Trujillo Perez (Palermo); Sandro Mezzadra and Irene Peano (Bologna)—as well as to the participants for the inputs received. I also acknowledge feedback from two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Cuttitta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cuttitta, P. Mandatory Integration Measures and Differential Inclusion: The Italian Case. Int. Migration & Integration 17, 289–302 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-014-0410-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Integration
  • Regular migration
  • Discrimination
  • Differential inclusion
  • Italy